iPad 3

I'll make a prediction right now (and we can all gather back here next year to either laugh or bow ). The regular e-ink touch Kindle, of course, will be huge (no mystery there). In fact, that will be the one that gets all the attention and sales, even over the Fire.

Prediction: while I think the Fire will enjoy modest, mostly "eh..." success, I truly think most people will just prefer the entrenched, does-everything-Fire-does-and-more option of an iPad. Even with the pricing factored in. I don't think people want to spend stuff on fractured "kinda does everything, but not quite" devices (especially in similar sizes from the same outfit)...6" e-ink reader, 7" color Fire.

Just feels weird. There will be some (maybe lots?), of course.

But I don't see the Fire making nearly the dent/impact people are thinking.

It won't "suck", and it'll certainly not be the embarrassing poop-the-bed take on the design that some of these others have been in 2010-2011. But I don't see it selling anywhere near the regular old e-ink Kindle in its new touch-screen design. I think people would rather go small and e-ink for reading (a known, proven thing...especially since the Kindle touch isn't changing screen size, resolution, etc.), and, for color and the whole enchilada, just go balls-out and get the real thing (which is an iPad).

Time will tell, but that's where I'm putting my prediction.

I think it'll be a success, but I don't see any roofs getting blown off or some massive, worldwide "Fire craze" (pyromania?) taking root.

Just my gut feeling on it. Except the Kindle Touch to be the barnburner here, not, ironically, the Fire.

The $300 difference is big, though. If it's a piece of crap, it won't matter. But if it gets raving reviews, I think Amazon sells a ton of them, and it does cut into Apple's market share to some extent. Hopefully not too much from my perspective. I own AAPL, not AMZN.

Yeah, $300 is nothing to sneeze at. I just think most people, if they can swing it, would go ahead and spend it for the fuller, larger experience of the iPad (and the App Store and known quality of iOS, solid future updates they can count on, etc.).

But I admit...that's how I'm wired. I don't like similarity and overlap in my stuff. I'd rather have a tiny iPhone and a big, powerful iMac (which is what I have). I'd never have a MacBook Air, iPad and Kindle Fire...three light, small devices all occupying that same sort of size/space. I hate that kind of approach. I like big, ridiculous differentiation, with everything being the best at its job/size without a bunch of "mingling". iPhone in my pocket, big powerful iMac at home...if I can't do everything I need with both of them, them I need to re-evaluate what I'm doing (and why).

It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out in the coming months (especially with the holidays coming up). I assume we'll hear some figures and info in the early part of 2012, to get an idea of how things go.

Pretty much everything you can do on an iPad, you can do on a Fire, assuming you are using similar apps.

That's a pretty big assumption, though. While the iPad obviously started out with few apps to take advantage of it either, it remains to be seen how successful Amazon will be at luring great apps into their market. So far, for smartphones, not so much.

And besides, how do they market it? "Web, moves, apps, games, reading and more". Most of those very clearly categorize it as a consumption device, not a creation one. About the closest they come to even suggesting that you could create something on this is here:

Quote:

Email

Stay in touch using our built-in email app that gets your webmail (Gmail, Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL etc.) into a single inbox. Import your messages and contact lists from other email accounts. Additional email apps are available in our Amazon Appstore for Android.

They mention apps, but their photo as well as their copy underneath, again, suggests consumption:

Quote:

Your Favorite Apps and Games

Angry Birds, Plants vs. Zombies, The Weather Channel and more, plus a great paid app for free every day. All apps are Amazon-tested on Kindle Fire for the best experience possible.

And, lastly, they get pretty close to that magical "you can create or edit documents on this!", but alas, not so much:

Quote:

Read Your Documents

Kindle makes it easy to take your documents with you. You can e-mail documents - including Word, PDF and more - directly to your Kindle so you that you can read them anytime, anywhere.

Documents in the Cloud
Start here. Finish there.
You can create amazing documents and presentations on your iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch. And now with iCloud, you can keep your work up to date across all your iOS devices. You don’t have to save your work or transfer any files. Your documents — with all your latest edits — automatically appear everywhere. iCloud is already built into Apple iOS apps like Keynote, Pages, and Numbers. It can also work with other iCloud-enabled apps. So you can do things like create a spreadsheet on your iPad and make edits to it on your iPhone. Or start sketching on your iPod touch and add the finishing touches on your iPad at home.

Apple, too, highlights capabilities like browsing, playing games, watching movies, and reading books. But they also mention creation capabilities numerous times. That's no accident, and it's unrelated to the iPad being more expensive.

How many folks are truly using the iPad as a creation or productivity tool? I rarely do. It's nice that it has some capabilities, but I'd say that right now it's about 95% consumption for me. I read, watch some movies, browse the web, play a few games, but spend little time writing or creating presentations on it. In the end, I use of my "big macs" for that stuff. I suspect I'm not alone, and that very few people actually use their iPad heavily as a content creation device.

And who is editing HD movies on their iPad? Really?

Also, Apple might not be competing with Amazon. But Amazon seems to be competing with Apple fairly explicitly:

If the desktop PC is used as a gaming platform, I believe it does. Both console and PC gaming companies are competing for our time and money. If I play Battlefield 3 (PC) for 40 hours during the month of November, that's obviously not time spent playing a console. I do own a Wii and a 360, but neither have been turned on in over a year.

Here's a chart provided by Nvidia showing console game vs PC game revenue.

Granted, half of the numbers are a prediction of the future and consoles have not been refreshed in 5-6 years. Still, Nvidia thinks PC gaming is on the rise somewhat at the expense of growth in the console sector...that's interesting considering their shift in focus to mobile devices and HPC over desktop systems.

"your post tagline/signature is lame. I'm disappointed, you are usually better than that." -Brave Ulysses

How many folks are truly using the iPad as a creation or productivity tool? I rarely do. It's nice that it has some capabilities, but I'd say that right now it's about 95% consumption for me. I read, watch some movies, browse the web, play a few games, but spend little time writing or creating presentations on it. In the end, I use of my "big macs" for that stuff.

I honestly don't know. I've seen some pretty cool stuff created on it, and oddly enough (considering there's no hardware keyboard), particularly writers seem to enjoy using it productively.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ezkcdude

I suspect I'm not alone, and that very few people actually use their iPad heavily as a content creation device.

That may be. I honestly can't say because I don't have one, and have not much of a need for one — my main computer is a MBP, and my "other computer" is an iPhone. There's not much room for in-between. If I had, say, a desktop instead, I could see myself ditching the laptop for a tablet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ezkcdude

Also, Apple might not be competing with Amazon. But Amazon seems to be competing with Apple fairly explicitly:

Point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ezkcdude

Yeah, to some extent, all these form factors are competing for our discretionary dollars.

This. I wasn't suggesting that it's not possible to choose between a game console and a gaming PC; obviously, many have to make that choice. Likewise, many may be faced with the decision between a Kindle Fire and an iPad.

But you're also faced with choosing between a small "shopping" car and an SUV. Or between an iPod nano and an iPod touch. Doesn't mean they directly compete.

I have to admit, I don't see the Fire as competing with the iPad. I see the iPad as the place to go for a broad app store and a variety of uses both from Apple's app solutions as well as third party apps for all kinds of things. I see the Fire as a way to have tight integration with Amazon's content store (Kindle books, Amazon Prime's streaming movies and TV shows), and for a few limited apps that handle email and light websurfing (and games, since they're talking about that). I think that people who are going to want the biggest amount of compatibility and the ability to pick up and try a ton of different apps for lots of purchases are going to go with the iPad, but people who only want books and movies and maybe their email are going to be more likely to go for the Fire.

For example, if I wanted a tablet, which I unequivocally don't, I'd only be using it for email and books, so I would distinctly prefer the Fire. I have an iPhone because I use the actual phone part a lot and it's nice to have books and music on my phone at the same time. But you know all those App Store apps that are so popular with people? I pretty much don't use any of them. I don't buy apps because I use a limited function set, and Apple's default apps pretty much cover everything I need, and it makes managing contacts and calendars much more pleasant. I just don't have any use for apps. In that regard, I'm probably much more like an Android user. And if someone who didn't need phone functionality had my use needs, I'm pretty sure they'd be just fine with a Fire. And they could use that $300 savings on Amazon Prime (to get shows/movies) and to buy a ton of Kindle books.

For example, if I wanted a tablet, which I unequivocally don't, I'd only be using it for email and books, so I would distinctly prefer the Fire. I have an iPhone because I use the actual phone part a lot and it's nice to have books and music on my phone at the same time. But you know all those App Store apps that are so popular with people? I pretty much don't use any of them. I don't buy apps because I use a limited function set, and Apple's default apps pretty much cover everything I need, and it makes managing contacts and calendars much more pleasant. I just don't have any use for apps. In that regard, I'm probably much more like an Android user. And if someone who didn't need phone functionality had my use needs, I'm pretty sure they'd be just fine with a Fire. And they could use that $300 savings on Amazon Prime (to get shows/movies) and to buy a ton of Kindle books.

But you're also faced with choosing between a small "shopping" car and an SUV. Or between an iPod nano and an iPod touch. Doesn't mean they directly compete.

Whether the competition is direct or indirect is of little consequence to me. It either is or isn't competition. Unless people would normally buy *both* a Kindle Fire and an Apple iPad, they are competing against each other. And I can't imagine someone buying both.

Whether the competition is direct or indirect is of little consequence to me. It either is or isn't competition. Unless people would normally buy *both* a Kindle Fire and an Apple iPad, they are competing against each other. And I can't imagine someone buying both.

I wonder how many would buy *both* an iPad and a MacBook Air, which I would see as sort of parallel (i.e., the Fire is to the iPad as the iPad is to the MBA).

I wonder how many would buy *both* an iPad and a MacBook Air, which I would see as sort of parallel (i.e., the Fire is to the iPad as the iPad is to the MBA).

That's not one of your better analogies. There are plenty of people who buy both (I sure did and I know other people who did as well). And beyond that, there are plenty of people who buy a tablet AND a PC or notebook. But how many people will buy a 7" tablet and a 10" tablet for themselves? Very, very few. That's probably the main reason Apple doesn't want to make both, really.

I wonder how many would buy *both* an iPad and a MacBook Air, which I would see as sort of parallel (i.e., the Fire is to the iPad as the iPad is to the MBA).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugene

I'd be more likely to buy both an iPad and MBA than an iPad and a Fire. The MBA for me is a full-on desktop replacement while the iPad is still very much a leisure device.

That's exactly why I have an MBA and an iPad! They're both portable, but definitely not interchangeable in terms of both capabilities and the way I actually use them. And while I did travel with the iPad for a while, the arrival of my MBA relegated the iPad back to the living room couch -- and the porch, kitchen, and bedroom. But when I travel, I'm back to carrying a full-fledged 'Book, just that it's smaller, lighter, and more powerful than any of the PowerBooks, iBooks, and MacBooks that accompanied me before it.

As for Amazon's devices, I'll eventually spring for a Kindle Touch. But the Fire? No way! Unless it's as a cheap toy for the kids...

I've been waiting for a true sub-PowerBook for more than 10 years. The 11-inch MacBook Air finally delivers on all counts! It beats the hell out of both my PowerBook 2400c and my 12-inch PowerBook G4 -- no contest whatsoever.

iLounge's Jeremy Horwitz has been posting some tidbits he's heard on his Twitter account. He also mentioned (which seemed to be pure speculation) the possibility of a 16GB iPad 2 at $299 to coincide with the release of the iPad 3. He also brought up the possibility of an 8GB iPad 2 at $199.

I'm not sure I see either of those happening (too little of the price of an iPad is in storage capacity), but I could see an 8GB iPad 2 at $299, and a 32GB iPad 3 at $499, basically mirroring their iPod touch pricing strategy.

Honestly, 8GB is probably enough for a lot of people, and a $299 price point would take a lot of wind from the sails of the Kindle Fire. Apple won't make a dumb decision just to compete, of course, but if they can manage to produce a year-old device with half the storage for $250 or so, and then sell it for $300, it would surely be worth the company's time.

The only issue comes from the iPod touch, actually. It would feel odd for a 9.7" 8GB device to be priced the same as a 3.5" 32GB device. I mean, it makes sense logically (trading screen size for capacity, or vice versa), but it's not as clean a distinction as Apple likes.

It kind of makes sense that they'd keep the iPad 2 around for a while, mostly because it uses the same processor as the iPhone 4S which clearly commands more presence and attention in Apple's lineup. Helps keep things neat.

8gb intro iPad 2 seems a little weird to me, although I doubt Apple would want to sell 16/32gb iPad 2s alongside 16/32/64 iPad 3s, and it would theoretically drop the price. Still, I'd probably get on just fine with a $199, 8gb iPad 2. It would stay firmly planted on my music stand and be used almost exclusively as a practice and study aid.

It looks like screen size has virtually no impact on pricing! And still, I think that every iPod touch model, every iPhone model, and every iPad model represents excellent value in its own right. Case in point, I've acquired at least one of each over the past year. Not to mention the MacBook Air I'm typing this on... Apple's product lineup is pure genius!

I've been waiting for a true sub-PowerBook for more than 10 years. The 11-inch MacBook Air finally delivers on all counts! It beats the hell out of both my PowerBook 2400c and my 12-inch PowerBook G4 -- no contest whatsoever.

So it has a retina display. That seems to be a given. Retina display means faster processor to push all those pixels which means increased power consumption compared to the iPad 2.

And now we're supposed to believe that it has 4G LTE too? Which is a notorious battery sucker? What, exactly, is going to power this thing? The main appeal of the iPad is the super awesome battery life, somehow I don't believe Apple is about to release an iPad which has drastically shorter battery life than its predecessor. Yes, yes, the 4S doesn't last as long as the 4, but it's minor. Putting an LTE chipset in the iPad would shoot the battery in the foot.

If this is true, then Apple has made major improvements to either lithium ion batteries or 4G LTE chipsets. (Or both.) I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying it's damned amazing if true.

Also,

Quote:

Originally Posted by torifile

Given that the WSJ seems to be 100% accurate when they publish Apple rumors, I'd mark all of them as very likely.

They didn't get iPhone 4S right. IIRC they were in the teardrop-shaped LTE iPhone 5 camp. But yes, the WSJ is more often than not Apple's "whoops, who let that slip?" confidant.

Sadly, being a technology pundit is truly never having to say you’re sorry. You can be wrong for years and never lose your job.—The Macalope

If this is true, then Apple has made major improvements to either lithium ion batteries or 4G LTE chipsets. (Or both.) I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying it's damned amazing if true.

Definitely agree with those concerns. As with any of their products, I don't think Apple would be willing to make a huge usability trade-off by limiting battery life. Meaning, I wouldn't be too surprised to see LTE miss the cut.

Regardless, I'm so pumped.

What are you guys predicting for availability? I don't really remember if there were huge lines for the iPad2 launch. Were there?

I remember some lines for the original iPad, although I don't think they were significant overnight lines. I managed to walk in on day 1 and buy one as an impulse buy - hoping to do so again!

Hoping they are going on sale the 7th and that they have a good deal of stock. I have a project going that can't wait a month. Not exactly sure what content designed for the iPad 1 and 2 will look like on Retina.

It's going to be my birthday present, so I'm going to be lined up day 1. Well, maybe if it doesn't have LTE. If it does, forget about it.

As far as battery life is concerned, if the rumors about its slight increase in thickness is to be believed, I'm thinking that should compensate. Oh, and it better have more than 256 megs of RAM or whatever the iPad 1/2 have. I hate the browser tabs reloading all the damned time....

If it's not red and showing substantial musculature, you're wearing it wrong.

And now we're supposed to believe that it has 4G LTE too? Which is a notorious battery sucker? What, exactly, is going to power this thing? The main appeal of the iPad is the super awesome battery life, somehow I don't believe Apple is about to release an iPad which has drastically shorter battery life than its predecessor. Yes, yes, the 4S doesn't last as long as the 4, but it's minor. Putting an LTE chipset in the iPad would shoot the battery in the foot.

LTE is probably solid as Qualcomm has a new chip that is smaller and less power hungry (28nm fab) and supports LTE/GSM/CDMA and voice all in a single chip. Nice side effect of such a chip is that an iPad LTE would not require separate AT&T and Verizon models and who know Sprint may get a crack at it as well.

I'm still thinking that we see Quad Core. The A6 should be fabbed at 28nm also and sometimes it makes sense to add cores to keep heat down rather than clock the frequency higher.

Oh yes BT 4.0 please. I'm eagerly awaiting the next revision of Apple BT accessories that will suddenly last a year or more on pair of AA batteries.